Developing Practice‐Oriented Theory on Collaboration: A Paradox Lens

Abstract

Collaboration is present throughout public administration as a means to address social issues that sit in the interorganizational domain. Yet research carried out over the last three decades has concluded that collaborations are complex, slow to produce outputs, and by no means guaranteed to deliver synergies and advantage. This article explores whether a “paradox lens” can aid the development of practice‐oriented theory to help those who govern, lead, and manage collaborations in practice. It draws on a long‐standing research program on collaboration and a synthesis of relevant literature on paradox and collaboration. The article develops five propositions on the application of a paradox lens that explicitly recognizes the context of collaboration as inherently paradoxical; acknowledges the limitations of mainstream theory in capturing adequately the complex nature of and tensions embedded in collaborative contexts; and uses the principles of paradox to develop practice‐oriented theory on governing, leading, and managing collaborations.

Broker Organizations to Facilitate Cross‐Sector Collaboration: At the Crossroad of Strengthening and Weakening Effects

“…These signs of “collaborative inertia” (Huxham and Vangen , 191; Vangen ; Vangen and Huxham ) point to two interconnected sources of tensions inherent in cross‐sector collaboration. First, such a collaboration uses multiple organizations’ resources and governance (Quélin, Kivleniece, and Lazzarini ), and therefore it is “simultaneously a single organizational arrangement and a product of sovereign organizations” (Borys and Jemison , 235).…”

Cross-Level Dynamics of Collaboration and Conflict in Multi-Party Systems: An Empirical Investigation Using a Behavioural Simulation

“…Literature on multiparty collaboration is diverse and lacks integration (Vangen 2017). Theories of multiparty collaboration range from practice oriented theories of collaboration that theorize collaborative relations as ways in which stakeholders can achieve collaborative advantage (Huxham 2003;Vangen 2017) to more systemic approaches that distinguish between inputs, processes and outputs of collaborative relationships (Thomson and Perry 2006;Wood and Gray 1991). Multiparty systems are social systems composed of interdependent stakeholder parties that interact to discover ways of moving forward while dealing with existing contradictions (Vangen 2017).…”

“…Theories of multiparty collaboration range from practice oriented theories of collaboration that theorize collaborative relations as ways in which stakeholders can achieve collaborative advantage (Huxham 2003;Vangen 2017) to more systemic approaches that distinguish between inputs, processes and outputs of collaborative relationships (Thomson and Perry 2006;Wood and Gray 1991). Multiparty systems are social systems composed of interdependent stakeholder parties that interact to discover ways of moving forward while dealing with existing contradictions (Vangen 2017). Collaborative relationships are inherently paradoxical as the stakeholders have to work with their similarities and their differences simultaneously in order to achieve collaborative advantage (Huxham 2003;Vangen 2017).…”

“…Multiparty systems are social systems composed of interdependent stakeholder parties that interact to discover ways of moving forward while dealing with existing contradictions (Vangen 2017). Collaborative relationships are inherently paradoxical as the stakeholders have to work with their similarities and their differences simultaneously in order to achieve collaborative advantage (Huxham 2003;Vangen 2017). In terms of organization, multiparty systems are formed of individuals, nested in stakeholder or interest parties that are ultimately nested in a larger system that strives for collaboration.…”

Understanding the Microfoundations of Government–Civil Society Relations

“…How do they align these diverging values and identities? Second, statecivil society cooperation might constitute an organizational paradox (Vangen 2017;Miron-Spektor et al 2018). For instance, the primary existence of many social movements is an oppositional stance towards state agencies.…”